Reframing

Here’s an example of the utility of reframing to domains outside the sphere of pickup. Reader PA asks,

What is a good, short, SFW [safe for work] response to the 77% [pay gap] lie?

Other than “it’s not true if type of profession, years of experience, and overtime are factored in.”

PA is right to tacitly assert that an effective reframe to a ridiculous but widely-believed PC lie should be short and sweet and digestible. References to arid data or statistical qualifications won’t win over the common plebe or plebette.

One reason why anti-Cathedral dissidents rarely get traction in these sorts of arguments they should be winning handily is that they don’t know how to package their pushback in a way that makes it more receptive to the part of the listening audience who aren’t brain-dead true believers. What is true for seduction is true for persuasion. Terse charm >>> loquacious insistence.

So in that vein, some persuasive, office-friendly reframes to the 77% pay gap lie would be:

“You say that like it’s men’s fault.”

“And secretaries only make 10% of CEOs. We should narrow that gap too.”

“Motherhood really competes with work.”

“Handouts would fix the problem.”

I welcome the readers to add their own pay gap myth reframes.

***

PS On a related subject, change is a-blowin’ in the wind, my friends. It’s small change, but something is definitely happening. I’ve noticed of late a certain reticence by the boyfriends of SWPL girls to robotically agree with their girlfriends’ feminist boilerplate. Instead of the usual head nodding and “yes, yes”s whenever their girls babble feminist cant, these once-sackless wonders have begun to look off into the distance impatiently, and their blank expressions betray conversation thread-killing neutrality. It’s not the CH-style shiv, but it’s better than total supplication.

I’d like to think that the Chateau message is finally influencing the zeitgeist; if so, we may be cresting the horizon to revolution, and moving into a brighter, sunnier, more unapologetically erect day.

it’s pretty interesting, you see smv and red pill and hypergamy and the rest popping up. and you can feel it too. not just the pickup stuff but the silent admission that ‘celebrate diversity’ is out the window for a lot of people. there’s a sense a big change is coming, and the self-sufficient people i know relish it.

it gets old watching about half the populace bleed you dry, and it’s long past time for the leeches’ comeuppance. even if that means thunderdome.

Da GBFM: Because women are paid less, a university hired mostly women. They set about deconstructing da Great Booksz and Classizcz as civilization declined and fell as dey read da vagina monoogoluesz instad ofHomer andMoses. lzozzllzlzlzlz

Also, once we get paid for our work, prices should be adjusted accordingly:

* LGBTs should only have to pay $5 for a pair of shoes.
* Black Women should only have to pay $10 for a pair of shoes.
* Black Men should only have to pay $15 for a pair of shoes.
* Latino Women should only have to pay $20 for a pair of shoes.
* Latino Men should only have to pay $25 for a pair of shoes.
* White Women, like you, should have to pay $250 for a pair of shoes.
* And White Men, like me, should have to pay $500 for a pair of shoes.

ive talked to men who have never heard of this stuff saying things about feminism directly. i think that since men who understand things carry an attitude in response to feminist blather and that attitude serves us well, it sort of bleeds into the culture or whatever. i personally dont call people out when they faceshit their ideas (i see absolutely no point in it), but i definitely treat their claims as absurd when they happen. like “thats nice dear” and shit like that. i will absolutely not lend their words any credence whatsoever and do not treat them as intellectual equals who i am engaging in fair conversation.

To learn the specific reasons why women earn less, go to YouTube. Search Why Men Earn More. Watch Warren Farrell videos. He explains 25 reasons.
On average, men work more hours per day, week, year and over their careers. Men are more likely to work shifts (night, overnight and weekend), hold dangerous jobs, as well as jobs that pay more because of the financial risk component (commissioned sales). Men commute longer distances. Men spend more uninterrupted time in careers. That’s the short list.
Bonus info. Never married women in their forties earn more than never married men in their forties.
The pay gap for self employed women compared to self employed men is even greater. Self employed women pay themselves far less than self employed men pay themselves. In reality, self employed women earn a lot less.

But for a chick with an IQ of 105 to 115, or even for a chick with a higher IQ but with some sociotarded nonsense shit for a degree?

If you paid them to think about it, they couldn’t understand it.

If you paid them to memorize the correct [“free market”] answer, like a Pavlovian Bitch, then they would quickly forget what they had been paid to memorize, and would resort to babbling cant.

You musn’t be too clever when talking math-ish shiznat to the womynz.

You gotta break it down into something really simple which they can understand.

Reframe it so that it’s something which will invoke more of a gut, visceral, emotional response in them.

“Well I think that you should have to pay more for your Chanel and Dior than Shanequa because you’re obviously prettier than she is and she needs all that makeup more than you.”

Or, better yet, if you want to go brutally hard-neg: “Well I think that Shanequa should have to pay more for her Chanel and Dior than you pay because obviously she’s much prettier than you, and those high prices for the best makeup just aren’t fair to the ugly girl who already has to fight so much discrimination to begin with.”

HR is definitely woman domain and as such idiotic in its core
Especially in engineering field, every single engineer I know despise them
from the deepest recess of their interview tortured self
What is greatest weakness some time ago a HR Cow asked me
I have none I said, what about yours?
Needles to say that was the end of it
It is fortunate that I do not have to deal with that crap any more

That only makes sense to people who are familiar with the basics of economics.

I like to think that I’m familiar with the basics of economics, and it doesn’t fully convince me. (Personally I believe there probably is 2-3 cents of unintentional but real discrimination and 20 cents of women making different choices than men). I don’t believe that markets are perfectly efficient. Sometimes people are systematically perceived as being less capable than they really are.

If you believe that markets are perfectly efficient, it’s hard to explain things like:

– 30% of Fortune 500 CEOs being 6 foot two or taller versus just 4% of men overall
– bald men make less money than men with hair
– as shown in Moneyball, baseball teams overpaid for things like stolen bases and underpaid for walks

30% of Fortune 500 CEOs being 6 foot two or taller versus just 4% of men overall

Correlation is not causation. “Four percent of men overall” you say, without mentioning that races have different average heights. Stocky Latinos among the Fortune 500 CEOs? Hardly. Also, overall superior genes affect both the mental and the physical. Attractive people are on average more intelligent, for example. Physically attractive traits being signs of health and strength caused by good genes.

So the same genes that make a man more intelligent and generally better mentally, also tend to make him taller? Hardly surprising. It doesn’t mean there is vast “discrimination” of short men for CEO positions.

I don’t think you understood my comment. I fully agree that the 77 cent wage gap narrative is mostly a lie. All I’m saying is that some unintentional discrimination might actually occur. I guessed 2-3 cents.

Read up on cognitive biases and learn how people can systematically misjudge people.

Actually, I’d say that women are OVERPAID by at least 15-20 cents due to the added drama and BS they bring to any environment. That is probably on the low side as a value for the cost they add to get work done.

“(Personally I believe there probably is 2-3 cents of unintentional but real discrimination”

No, it is the simple fact that men are better negotiators. Period.

When this topic comes up, love to point out the whole fallacy of the argument, that women make different life choices, work less hours in less-demanding/less-boring fields of work than men, blah, blah.

Wrapping it up by saying, “even then though there is around a 4%-5% male wage gap, but this can be attributed to men being better negotiators of their salary than women,” is such a nice cherry on the top because it makes the hysterical feminists even more hysterical while the coolchicks in the room nod in knowing agreement with me.

(Not only are the coolchicks infinitely more realistic about male-female differences than the feminazis, but they are also much more attractive and want their men to be able to bring home more bacon).

^Excellent comment. Basic economics tells you beyond any doubt that there is no *intentional* sex discrimination, but even after controlling for the obvious variables that impact a person’s market value, a [much smaller than 23%] wage gap is still observed (I’ve seen anywhere from 5-9%).

One explanation is unintentionally perceiving women to be less capable. But of course, it could also be the product of variables that can’t be measured in a study, such as quality of work, salary negotiation, etc. Or it could be the price of potential baggage that comes with hiring a female employee, e.g. maternity leave, sexual harassment claims. There are plenty of reasonable explanations for the so-called “unexplained” portion of the gap.

At any rate, I think we can all agree that trying to legislate away the gap is absurd. You can always prove that female employees at a certain company earn less than males, but how do you ever prove that it’s because of discrimination? This, like much of the stuff the left trots out, is a stunt to win over the unthinking idiot vote.

Not so much with women specifically, but I constantly face whiny shit from minimum wage employees who think they ought to get paid what I make. My stock answer to this is, “What’s stopping you? The school I went to is still taking students today, and this company is always hiring.”

The usual thing stopping them is weed. Oh noes we can’t get a real job because we would have to give up weed. Instead, the government should raise minimum wage to $35 an hour. And legalize weed. And give people free weed.

Who was that politician who promised pot for every chicken? These people are scared of work, and they want their weed, dammit!

I blogged about the gender wage gap yesterday and included some re-frames. From my post:

“…instead of saying that women are only paid 77% of what men are paid (at the median) one could just as easily remark that women are only doing 77% of what men are doing (at the median). Instead of complaining that it takes until April of the following year for women to be paid as much as men were paid in just the previous year, one could just as easily say that it takes until April of the following year for women to finally *complete as much work* as men did in only the previous year. Instead of asking why women are paid less one could ask why women generally don’t work as much, don’t work in as difficult jobs, choose less difficult jobs and specializations, etc.”

1. It debunks the myth for people who approach the issue with an open mind and/or are able to reason, and provides them with links to evidence that it’s just a myth. This will prevent them from voting for an equal pay law that will have the ultimate effect of discriminating against men.
2. If I do encounter a leftist/feminist complaining about the mythological wage gap I can just point them to the post instead of actually arguing with them. I only have to do the research once, and now it’s done.

obviously some calibration is needed, but if said with a wry playful smile, you should be able to get away with it. it’s also great for qualification/disqualification. the chickies who scoff are no fun (older spinster types) but the ones who laugh with you are good for the gaming (younger pre-wall hotties)

yeah, right?
The dead baby tax, that’s funny.
As I understand it, the ladies get to kill a kid if it interferes with their career. So, clearly they need to give society a skim of their dough to pay for their sins.
Of course, idiotic feminists can barely register that there could be an ethical issue with ending a fetus’s life. You know, a blank Sebelius type of stare. “what? a fetus is a choice. There’s no life there.” I mean, even an atheist who doesn’t care about souls or whatever could be able to see, “yeah, technically, that pile of cells will pop out of your cooter as a human, so you’re definitely killing something with human potential”
Feminist? “deerrrrppp?”
But, I digress. Still funny response by Thwack.

And you don’t seem to understand women on the loose have been our civilization’s worst enemies. Whether you like it or not our ancestors (pre-enlightenment) knew a thing or two your ilk refuses to understand…women are illogical and left to their devices inhumanely selfish, willing to sacrifice others at every turn if it means more pleasures/resources for her.

I’m sorry for promoting this idiot, who has over 13 million YT subscribers, but this is a perfect example of the typical American woman today.

Check #4 or #3 about her advice to guys. She has no clue what she actually likes. She thinks she wants chivalry.

Also her foul mouth, etc. — this is the woman of today. She has “fans”. All thin pretty women under 35 today subscribe to this chick and religiously watch all of her vids and think she’s hilarious and a great example of how to be a woman today.

Not really. She sort of does that schtick, but deep down she’s a modern young woman with typical cock carousel riding, Puffed Ho reading beliefs. In any event, she had followed the feminist’s teachings. She’s a self proclaimed cock carousel riding modern slut. She LOUDLY brags about it and is proud of it and has no clue about the coming wall (or the fact that she’s already not that hot) or the fact that her future husband won’t be happy about all her shit (nor does she care — she don’t need no man, except to come in her face (but not her hair…that’s what she says) and use the vibrator on her. That’s 30 new men a year, by the way.

Whoa did Jenna Marbles hit the wall. These last few years of Internet fame must have afforded her lot of cash for alcohol or cigarettes. Since looking at her, not listening to her, was the point, why are guys still watching?

That chain around neck is enough of a dis-qualifier not to mention anything else
1.4 billion and I hear of her for the first time
I may have shielded myself to an extent from the ugliness of this unfortunate age that the providence assigned to me without my consent

hooo boy! I’ve worked in the past with a very large corporation, helping the department that processes leave requests of all types (medical, maternity, work injury, personal, etc).

The workforce is about 50% by gender. Females range between 85 and 90% of the leaves depending on the region of the country. Paid, benefited, job protected. Many of them go on “medical” leave within a month of requalifying for the next paid round….

My conservative mother-in-law never had cable tv until one day, years ago, before I married her daughter, I showed her Fox News. She saw a glimmer of hope and bought cable just for Fox News. She’s aware of Frankfurt School treachery now because of me and she has a large social circle. Whenever she starts to feel like the battle is being lost, I’ll paraphrase some of the truths discussed here and she’ll notice the little trends in said social circle. She’s always despised feminism and now sees Fox news as the propaganda it is. Good hunting.

“Yeah I totally agree, and since a lot of the differential is based on hours worked, we should start reducing maternity leave to like a week and mandate minimum hourly work requirements for all women. Additionally, since there is a component of higher risk occupations in the data, we should force women out of those indoor jobs and make them go out and work in the Bakken or something…)

“I blame it on the Jews.” and reframe it as a Zionist conspiracy. If you’re not going for ridiculing them though, you can agree and say that you think men should get more days off so that the gap will disappear. Make it clear you’re not taking the other person seriously.

“Older men make more than older women, the pay gap being non-existent after college graduation. Maybe men just age better than women.”

Insist on making women half the workplace related deaths. If their solutions for the made up pay gap are stupid, say that we need to randomly select women and execute them in order to close the death gap at work.

being nice and mushy when im not at all. peaks the curiosity of the higher or highest end split tail. call it “incongruence” game if you will.

their ego becomes so invested in their mercenary judgement and perception conquering what they are shown, they will do ANYTHING to get at the truth. and they all, and i mean every single one…, fall in love with the drama and ergo me.

Put aside any complaints about a wage gap, if women think there is ANYTHING unfair about the American job market (especially young women), just remind them that there are a plethora of options that a woman with ZERO talent, skill, or education can instantly take and make a living.

1. Stripper. Forget “make a living”, they can get rich if their emotional engine can survive it. And before any of you say “strippers have to be in good shape”… Not so fast. Most strip clubs are on the 96%-Obama-Support side of town anyway. Hey, some jobs are dangerous.

2. NANNY. The worst of all. I know dozens of 20-something chicks who can afford to live by themselves, pay for a new car, and get trashed with their fellow hens 3 nights a week at some pitiful suburban version of a club just by telling a wealthy family “yeah I’ll watch your little shit machines 35 hours a week”.

3. Hair stylist/salon slut. How long does it take to get certified for that shit? Like 4 weeks or something? They make decent money to turn other female heads various shades of yellow.

4. Receptionist. Always and forever.

The list could go on, and I won’t bother. Men do not have these luxuries. They don’t exist. The only comparison that comes close are physical labor jobs like warehouse work or landscaping. Not only is that very taxing work, there’s no cultural ridicule for women to enter those industries. The above^ are all jobs that women have a monopoly on, because society would (rightly) ridicule a man who pursued those positions.

Most women don’t think taking off their clothes in front of strangers is an acceptable employment option. That’s why strippers DO make a lot of money– because most women won’t do it. Even if they need the money.

The CH influence is definitely chipping away at the big machine. I have turned a number of friends on to Heartiste. The phrases and words are definitely getting out there. We are on the cusp of a cultural and social revolution where white men bang more, win more, and triumph more. No amount of control can actually stop us once we awaken the sleeping giant. 2014 will go down in history as the moment it all came together.

These are all zippy lines, but if your goal is to try to get the indoctrinated yoyo to actually listen to you, being insulting isn’t a good strategy. What I do is play dumb (please, skip the jokes) and say something like “I’m always confused by this. Are they including women who work part time or flex time because they have kids and comparing them to men who work full time? Because that’s not comparing apples to apples.” Etc.

“There is a belief in both the Selk’nam and Yámana tribes that women used to rule over men in ancient times,[14] Yámana attribute the present situation to a successful revolt of men. There are man festivals associated with this belief in both tribes.[25][26]”

“I’d like to think that the Chateau message is finally influencing the zeitgeist; if so, we may be cresting the horizon to revolution, and moving into a brighter, sunnier, more unapologetically erect day.”

I believe it. Look at some of the niche communities with sizable international popularity such as The Misc on bodybuilding.com. While PUA is seen as something negative on there simply because they worship pre made inherent perfection, they love them some alpha/beta, 80/20 rule, Evo pysch, ‘sloot’ shaming, red pillish knowledge.

Lol not only a good reframe but flat out true. Under the feminist’s own argument that means men “share” some of their money with women, which of course is what really happens. The money comes from fathers, husbands, and beta suitors.

This puts the burden on them to explain themselves. Often these statements are put forth as assertions that simply speak for themselves. Inevitably they’ll say “equal pay for equal work” at which point you’ve got them because any assertion that women who work as many hours as men and as many years and have the same level of education get paid less is demonstrably false.

Alex Hribal, a 16-year-old sophomore at Franklin Regional High School in Murrysville, Pa., used two 8-to-10 inch “kitchen-type” “straight” knives in the attack, which started shortly after 7 a.m., police said.

****************************************************************************************
“Franklin Assistant Principal Sam King tackled the suspect during the attack, and was joined by Principal Joan Mellon in subduing him, Seefeld said.”

OK, so if Sam King had been Samantha King, how many more students would have been stabbed?

1. Statistics have shown that the difference is between 0-8% when accounted for working hours, pregnancy breaks, part-time employment

2. Major differences in same occupations are by far higher technical qualifications like specialist nurses (over 80% males) or major example are doctors (50% females, but over 80% of higher-paid specialists are males)

3. The last difference is that men simply desire more power, more responsibility, thus get more advances and they are more aggressive at wage negotiations (those points concern only the upper level jobs). In the end those are the jobs that women scream for and try to enact quotas.

Lower and middle-level jobs have 100% equal pay for equal work-hours. The upper level jobs are competitive and women lose out to better men or negotiate worse wages and that will not change.

Note to all – sarcasm – while entertaining for the choir – is far less effective in actually infiltrating the mind of the other as it tends to raise the limbic shields. My preferred approach uses the known winner ‘most people’ as in “Most people these days recognize the pay gap is a myth. Let me know if you want a few links so you can avoid appearing foolish” Best delivered with a very matter of fact and slightly helpful tone. You are not starting a conversation, you are describing reality: “Most people these days call the color of the sky blue. I can get you some links on the physics of color if you like.”

A story on the 77 percent myth is currently the most popular news piece at WSJ. It bears repeating: Women prefer to work less. They also have children, taking them out of the work force for a while. They prefer jobs with more security instead of the possibility of higher pay.

Men take risks like starting new businesses, so that some men fail and have to start over as an employee, while others succeed spectacularly and become rich CEOs who raise the median for all men’s wages. Men do all the dangerous jobs, which kill, and therefore pay more.

Also, when women know they are going to have children they choose jobs where you can come back after several months’ absence, and these jobs generally pay less than the jobs where you have to be part of the technical/skill development at all times.

,,,And so on. Keep the link.

And … are we allowed to mention the scientific fact that men and women have different brains? That women’s IQ is more closely gathered around the mean, and that it is the same for them with all other mental skills, so that the top leaders in every field will always be mostly men? (Same between races: Whites have a wider IQ spread, and a wider spread in linguistic skills, spatial ability etc, than any other race. The top IQ outliers, and the top outliers in every field, will therefore be mostly White men.)

Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40-hour week earned 88% of male earnings.

Then there is the issue of marriage and children. The BLS reports that single women who have never married earned 96% of men’s earnings in 2012.

The supposed pay gap appears when marriage and children enter the picture. Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males. Many working mothers seek jobs that provide greater flexibility, such as telecommuting or flexible hours. Not all jobs can be flexible, and all other things being equal, those which are will pay less than those that do not.

So when you want to take White money, White jobs, and White education, it’s all about collectivist Million Man March Si Se Puede! community organizing, but when you want to take White women you’re full-autistic Libertarians.

I’m not at all ashamed of my concern for my civilization, my people, and the world which my posterity will inhabit. But I sympathize that this type of thinking may seem difficult and foreign to you, which is understandable since it relates to the maintenance of an advanced civilization.

That said, are “the rest” really “handling it” beyond simply producing bastard spawn and reducing once-great cities to rubble (http://www.detroityes.com/fabulous-ruins-of-detroit/home.php)? Since you mentioned it: 12 White men have walked on the moon; after 40 years of 1964 Immigration Reform, Interracial Marriage, Affirmative Action, etc., I admit that we can’t do it anymore. But “the rest” can’t either: Russell Simmons & Oprah have made a lot of money and transformed society, but are they able to put an Afronaut on the moon?

Responding to the off-topic stuff:
Homogeneous societies can get away with far greater doses of modernism/liberalism than “diverse” ones: Linus Torvalds and JK Rowling were both on public assistance, and they used it wisely to make something of themselves. I’m somewhat in favor of private-sector unions. I support black literacy and education they legitimately earn without assistance from Affirmative Action or athletic department intervention.

The bitter feminist man-hate in that newspaper has gone so far beyond the point of absurdity that even the herb journos are willing to be outed as heretics, albeit timidly. The comments section gives an idea what’s brewing.

If you’re feeling like it stuck, or might benefit by a follow-up you can then apply this:

“I just thought you were smarter than to fall for an obvious manipulation of the truth designed to convince strong, independent women such as yourself that they are somehow “victims” (Unfortunately, “air quotes” may be required during delivery of this one) who need the government to take care of them.”

The homosexualists have successfully framed the issue as one of freedom: “The freedom to marry” (as if Rock Hudson’s weren’t somehow free to choose from the multitudes of women to marry). Accusations of people wanting to “ban” gay “marriage” (as if there were such a thing as “gay marriage” to actually ban).

How would you reframe the issue?

[CH: “polygamists should not be denied their right to marry.” sit back, watch hamster spin.]

Thanks, but I’m not sure I get the analogy, and I think it might be easy to pull it apart for a determined foe. Here’s why: If marriage is a mating institution, you of all people should know that a man can mate with more than one woman. So, logic dictates he can have more than one marital bond (although societal considerations discourage permitting it). So, Plural marriage is STILL marriage. It’s just a bad idea. Not comparable to gay “marriage” at all, seeing as how gay “marriage” is not marriage in any meaningful sense of the word.

Any other reframes?

[CH: the idea behind the polygamist slippery slope reframe is that there’s no logical argument against it that couldn’t also be used against gay marriage. the trope throws gay marriage advocates back on their heels, in the defensive crouch where anal fissures are born.]

I assume that the anal fissures caused by the lack of a logical counterpoint would result in shrieking, taking up skirts, repairing to the fainting couch and histrionically requesting the smelling salts from having been exposed to such egregious heteronormativity, homophobia, sexism, heterosexism and assorted other ills known only to the committed cultural Marxist.

The “when you control for X, Y, and Z the pay gap disappears” line of argument takes you into a frame where you accept that workers are interchangeable, and their responsibilities are so stable that you can recruit replacement workers by comparing their resume to a checklist.

Interchangeability is more important for women than it is for men. Women are more likely to want a job where they can cut their hours or take maternity leave. So the job has to be well defined enough that somebody could sit at your desk, pick up the documentation for the work in progress, and carry on where you left off.

Interchangeability is a good thing in mature, regulated industries and in the government sector. Not coincidentally, those tend to be the industries where women prefer to work. It’s harder to achieve in young developing industries, where somebody’s job description is likely to be out of date by the time you’ve managed to write it down.

Guys read this — I don’t think even CH has really made this point. The topic is “fit shaming.” This hottie in the video below is an idiot because she advocates a vegan diet, but she makes a great point here. She’s also smokin’ hot.

We all know the fattie left has made “fat shaming” a big thing. The shaming of the hottie facebook mom, which CH posted about, “this is what a real woman looks like,” “real women have curves,” plus size model campaigns, etc.

But as with everything, the left can’t leave well enough alone (not enough to tolerate faggotry, “don’t ask don’t tell” is not enough, not enough, even to tolerate faggot marriage…no, one must *affirmatively support* faggot marriage)
and takes it too far. Rather than just saying it’s bad to “fat shame”–which arguably could be an almost valid point–they take it up a notch and actually affirmatively encourage “fit shaming.” They literally do this. Not only is it not bad to be a fattie because you consume 3,000 calories of soda and potato chips a day while sitting on the couch watching reality TV and never exercising, it *is* bad to be a person with self control who eats right and exercises and earns a fit body!!!!! They affirmatively “fit shame” now.

It’s an action, not merely a prohibition on “fat shaming.” Even CH’s post, I don’t think, framed it this way, when dealing with the hottie facebook mom. The fattie left did not say the hottie mom was wrong for fat shaming; no, the left took it a step further to the left and affirmatively “fit shamed” the hottie. It’s the fit people who are bad for making fatties feel bad about themselves.

It’s okay, to the left, for a fattie to derogatively refer to a fit, attractive person as “skinny Minnie” or “toothpick” and in their diseased minds they see nothing wrong with that, even though if one had to choose, of course, a fit body reflects a person who had the discipline to eat right (thus consuming less of the Earth’s resources, libtard) and exercise.

The left’s craziness is really so out of control maddening it’s hard to imagine it.

It’s a natural progression since we’ve reached the tipping point where most women are overweight. The mere PRESENCE of a slender, fit woman can be upsetting to overweight women. So what often happens is the thin girl will be self-deprecating to avoid the others resenting her for how she looks. It’s less of a problem in real life because we tend to congregate with similar people, so thin girls tend to hang out with other thin girls, but there are all kinds of exceptions where the self-deprecating dynamic comes in. It’s just going along to get along.

The point is, skinny “mean girls” are becoming the minority. All the social power they have in HS and college gets diluted in the real world, trust me. Imagine a thin chick in a room of fat women. Is she going to shame them? She’s outnumbered.

You’ve lectured me about this before. I go along to get along. Most girls do. I’m not interested in picking fights with people and making them feel bad.

Not only is the “thin chick” envied deep inside of every fat woman in that room, but she will be ridiculed and rebuffed at every opportunity in team-fatty in order to keep the matriarchy authority of that room. Many ‘thin [and attractive] women’ understand this form of feminism early on in employment and social circumstances and don’t push the fatties to far…or else! :p

I think Amy and herbie have made a good point, CH. It all goes back to the root problem that our entire society is beta, has failed to stand up to feminism. These women today are actively taught to think they should not do ANYTHING based on the idea that it might be pleasing to a man. You can see it in any comments section on anything remotely touching the concepts we discuss here. Feminism is a big society-wide shit test, that the beta male population and “leaders” have failed.

In the end, men control(led) society. Women could not get the vote and all the other stuff that’s happened since the 1970s unless beta men, as you posted about, let it happen.

Society should have taught the fatties better so little Amy doesn’t have to risk getting sat on and bullied in her office’s coffee room.

I mean, men love women. Men are usually naturally beta because we want to please and be nice to women, legitimately, not just “to get laid” as the women are taught to see it as “creepy niceguy” when the guy is beta.
Even PUAs would say, “we love women,” of course, but going further, “and proud of it.” Everything we men do is to try to make women happy.

But the women are taught by YKW feminism that is AGGRESSIVELY promoted on MSM TV (it’s really really out of control, if you watch any TV, which I don’t, but I have caught glimpses) that they should not make any decision (like staying thin) based on a consideration that an evil man might approve. It’s really a weakness on the part of the female mind, but of course they don’t get it.

I sometimes respond to these comments (“we don’t care what you think ‘as a man’ ” when a man leaves some helpful comment on a blog or youtube like on the fit shaming video): “Why? What is so wrong with taking into account what the other sex might like or dislike? Men do things to please women all the time yet women think it is a breach of the grrrrrl power contract to do the same. Unlearn the feminist lies you’ve been taught your entire life” and then I link to CH.

Grim, I don’t really get bullied, it’s more a half-mocking victim tone that I feel compelled to defuse. “Oh, you’re so tiny. I like food too much to be that small. I wish I had time to exercise.” It’s like I’m making them feel bad about themselves just by standing there.

Fat shaming– eh. I really believe that most girls who are out of high school will respond more to sexual rejection than they do to other girls shaming them. Girls know they’re supposed to be thin, and that guys like girls who are thin. That really hasn’t changed… look at fashion magazines and celebrities… thin is still very much the ideal. What’s changing? Well, men are getting fat too. Overweight girls get attention from overweight men. Getting enough male attention the way they are lessens the need to stay thin, I guess.

Grim, I don’t really get bullied, it’s more a half-mocking victim tone that I feel compelled to defuse. “Oh, you’re so tiny. I like food too much to be that small. I wish I had time to exercise.” It’s like I’m making them feel bad about themselves just by standing there.

Fat shaming– eh. I really believe that most girls who are out of high school will respond more to sexual rejection than they do to other girls shaming them. Girls know they’re supposed to be thin, and that guys like girls who are thin. That really hasn’t changed… look at fashion magazines and celebrities… thin is still very much the ideal. What’s changing? Well, men are getting fat too. Overweight girls get attention from overweight men. Getting enough male attention the way they are lessens the need to stay thin, I guess.”

I can only gather that you are thin and youthful.

What these Harpies say to your face is quite different than what they say out of your earshot. These little quiet moments with you are even revealing upon themselves due to the terms “I love food too much” and ” I have no time to exert energy that could keep me from my favorite show” etc.

What they are saying is that no man is worth all that. It is indoctrination into team fatty. I am obviously too much older and jaded, but this is the truth. You, as a petite young attractive woman will never see the true ugly face of the feminista until you are part of the club. And yes, guys are fatter and wider and even more masculine… Your point?

“Most women are overweight.” Yep. As I’ve said before, this fact supports my theory of “justified one-itus” in betas, greater betas, and even lesser alphas. Simply put: there are far less “bangable” (datable, marriageable) women around than there are “bangable” men. No homo, but I can identify and judge “bangable” men I see around town. Of course looks are less important for the men….all the things we discuss here are true.

Point being, and the libtard feminists would call me shallow, but a decent looking man who has good hygiene, has a good career, is not a complete social retard even if not a social butterfly, reasonably fit–exercises but not a roid freak (which as many point out is kind of feminine or gay…overobsessiveness with one’s own male physique)…. that man “deserves” a woman who’s at least a 6 or 7 for an LTR or marriage. In other words: “I’m not fat. I’m handsome. Why should I have to LTR or marry a fatty?”

And it seems like 85% of women now are fatties!!! And I’m talking about the proper age range too (22 to 35, single). I’m not including moms and grandmas.

So when a greater beta snags a 7 for an LTR because he happened to be in the same space and time with her and his “game” worked, they hit it off, they end up dating….. it’s devastating for the beta to lose that girl because it will be a long dry spell before he finds another 7 that he’d even want to date. Even worse if the greater beta has snagged an 8 or 9, which in my book is a pretty freakin’ beautiful, fit woman.

This is unscientific, but I really think the situation is something like for every ten 6 or 7 or 8 eligible men (man ranking being based on total package, not looks alone), there are perhaps 4 “eligible” women. That means the competition among men is fierce, because there are not enough “eligible” women to go around. Six out of 10 men are left with the option of dating a fattie or nothing at all.

I base this observation on looking at people everywhere I go….out in the streets of a supposedly good city for singles every day. Walking up and down the streets. Most women are undateable. I would not bang them if they paid me, swear to god.

I don’t know. Perhaps I’m wrong and the women feel the same way, looking around.

Admittedly, also, I (try to) do day game. I don’t do the clubs. I guess in the clubs I’d find all the hotties?

Any man with experience knows its impossible to convince a woman that she is wrong if she doesn’t *feel* wrong. So if she *feels* that there is a pay gap, no amount of truth or logic will convince her otherwise.

Its like this. To get to the truth of a matter, as men we tend to remove ourselves from the proposition/event/dilemma in order to ascertain what we truly think about it. And its this unbiased view that dictates how we feel about it.

Women on the other hand tend to place themselves at the centre of the subject in question in order to ascertain how it makes them feel. Then they look around for a reason that explains that feeling.

Because this methodology is so different to ours, on the occasions her feeling does coincide with the truth, to the average man she appears “intuitive” but when it doesn’t she just appears neurotic.

It seems reasonable to assume that this primitive method of female decision making evolved because girls had to make life changing choices much earlier in life, way before they were old enough to develop a mental capacity for logic. But the more our society advances the more redundant this emotional thinking seems.

I agree that no matter the facts the ‘true believers’ will stick to their li(n)es. Censorship is the most common form of protection against truth. A recent BBC article lamenting the dearth of wiminz among Wikipedia editors deservedly got a lot of rational antifeminist comments copiously upvoted (the most one sided article if there was one). As a result, BBC shot down the comments and now you can’t even see more than a few recent ones. No way to see the best ones full of sarcasm. That’s how BBC buries its mistakes:http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26828726